[IDEA] Deconstructing Discordianism

[The Wizard]

Then there's Promethea. That wasn't so much about superheroes as reality, mysticism, symbolism, and stories.

[Cainad (dec.)]

If I'm understanding this whole concept of deconstruction properly, we probably ought to choose, or at least outline, the Discordian ideas which we are going to take to their extreme. I just scanned through my dead tree copy of the PD and took some notes. I'm hoping that some of the ideas presented in the PD will be interesting to see deconstructed:

• Pg. 00013: "Heaven is down. Hell is up. This is proven by the fact that the planets and stars are orderly in their movements, while down on earth we come close to the primal chaos." In other words, order is a hellish existence.
• Pg. 00032: "There are no rules anywhere."
• Everyone is a Pope, and "a Pope is someone who is not under the authority of the authorities."
• The general state of the world is that people take things too seriously think that there is a true order to everything, and that order must be adhered to.
• Pg. 00046: The Orders of Discordia--those elements which emphasize order are antagonistic (i.e. they are the Bad Guys). They are blinded by the Aneristic Delusion, but Discordians are not blinded.
• Pg. 00074: "The human race will begin solving its problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously."

I think these ideas can be taken to an extreme fairly easily. Obviously, many of us, as Discordians, will be tempted to point out that the ideas presented above have been taken out of context, but I think that's okay. It's acceptable to take the ideas out of the context of Discordianism as a whole and see what they look like if taken too far.

I particularly like the fifth one I mentioned above, the one on page 46 about the Orders of Discordia. The attitude that "we know the truth; we know what's really going on, but They don't" is one that would be exceptionally weird if Discordians took it to an extreme.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, however I wanted to mention an idea I had this morning which coincidentally fits the idea of a fictional reductio-ad-absurdam of discordianism quite well. Since I can't be arsed to actually *write* the damned thing, maybe I can spit it out and have one of you spags work on it.

Goes like this: This guy gets pranked in some absurdly surreal way (I'm thinking typical MIB fare -- two suited men go into a mcdonalds and have to be instructed on what to do with a hamburger, or something), and follows them back. Later manages to find out that there is some absurdly technologically advanced group of pranksters orchestrating nearly all the fortean phenomena and as-of-yet-unexplained pranks in existence, saying that they need to break people out of the status quo or the system will become fragile. They take the place of an evolutionary competitor to mainstream humanity, so that humans as a race don't atrophy and die off. Main character joins them and helps them. Finds out they are actually government funded. Turns out that their constant pranking and mixing people up is the only thing keeping people intelligent and open-minded enough that the whole status quo doesn't fall apart and something better takes its place -- by using minor psychological shrapnel to attack stratified thought they have strengthened the status quo and actually retarded progress because a system that is outdated has been artificially strengthened so as not to fall apart and give way to something better from the ground up.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, however I wanted to mention an idea I had this morning which coincidentally fits the idea of a fictional reductio-ad-absurdam of discordianism quite well. Since I can't be arsed to actually *write* the damned thing, maybe I can spit it out and have one of you spags work on it.

Goes like this: This guy gets pranked in some absurdly surreal way (I'm thinking typical MIB fare -- two suited men go into a mcdonalds and have to be instructed on what to do with a hamburger, or something), and follows them back. Later manages to find out that there is some absurdly technologically advanced group of pranksters orchestrating nearly all the fortean phenomena and as-of-yet-unexplained pranks in existence, saying that they need to break people out of the status quo or the system will become fragile. They take the place of an evolutionary competitor to mainstream humanity, so that humans as a race don't atrophy and die off. Main character joins them and helps them. Finds out they are actually government funded. Turns out that their constant pranking and mixing people up is the only thing keeping people intelligent and open-minded enough that the whole status quo doesn't fall apart and something better takes its place -- by using minor psychological shrapnel to attack stratified thought they have strengthened the status quo and actually retarded progress because a system that is outdated has been artificially strengthened so as not to fall apart and give way to something better from the ground up.

You are certifiably insane, Enki.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Should I take that as a "Good job, we'll get right on that"?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

If Discordianism can be thought of as simply, "think for yourself, schmuck" it presupposes at some point that thought dependent on an external authority is undesirable.

However, when and where exactly does this occur?

Applying the principle to language itself clearly leads to Pinealism, since external authorities (the dictionary and historical consensus) are integral to language.

Is it even possible for anyone to not think for themselves? Isn't the continual act of deferring judgment to an external authority a choice made at every instant by the individual?

Is it even possible for someone to behave in a way that they do not believe serves their best interest? I don't think it is. At every moment that is all you can do.

"Think for yourself, schmuck is an empty slogan then, a glittering generality.

[LMNO]

I know this is for Deconstruction, but I have to say it anyway:

For me, "TFY,S" is another way of saying "double check and independently verify your sources."  As social creatures, we are almost invariably taught and informed by others; and as self-deluding creatures, we are constantly convincing ourselves that what we do is "right".

"TFY,S" seems to be a way to take a step back and contemplate your actions/beliefs.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm with LMNO here...

TYF,S! doesn't mean Think Completely Original And Unique Thoughts. It simply means that you have to THINK for yourself rather than blindly follow what others tell you. A person can think for themselves and quote from others. A person can think for themselves and include other people's memes. Hell, TYF,S! came from Illuminatus! and that books borrows memes, writing styles, ideas and quotes from many other individuals.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm with LMNO here...

TYF,S! doesn't mean Think Completely Original And Unique Thoughts. It simply means that you have to THINK for yourself rather than blindly follow what others tell you. A person can think for themselves and quote from others. A person can think for themselves and include other people's memes. Hell, TYF,S! came from Illuminatus! and that books borrows memes, writing styles, ideas and quotes from many other individuals.

A corollary might be "Do The Fucking Research".

[LMNO]

But, it must be remembered, that Net's post was intended to Deconstruct, so it's not like he actually holds that position, nor do we have to defend TFY,S.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But, it must be remembered, that Net's post was intended to Deconstruct, so it's not like he actually holds that position, nor do we have to defend TFY,S.

Should no one discuss the validity of the premise of anyone else's deconstruction? What, then, is the point of this exercise?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I know this is for Deconstruction, but I have to say it anyway:

For me, "TFY,S" is another way of saying "double check and independently verify your sources."  As social creatures, we are almost invariably taught and informed by others; and as self-deluding creatures, we are constantly convincing ourselves that what we do is "right".

"TFY,S" seems to be a way to take a step back and contemplate your actions/beliefs.

What do you mean by "double check and independently verify your sources"?

Why don't you just say that instead of the vague phrase, "TFY,S"?

So you're saying WHENEVER this doesn't occur, you're not thinking for yourself?

[LMNO]

But, it must be remembered, that Net's post was intended to Deconstruct, so it's not like he actually holds that position, nor do we have to defend TFY,S.

Should no one discuss the validity of the premise of anyone else's deconstruction? What, then, is the point of this exercise?

I'm not saying that, i just wanted to point out that he was Taking It To Extremes on purpose.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I know this is for Deconstruction, but I have to say it anyway:

For me, "TFY,S" is another way of saying "double check and independently verify your sources."  As social creatures, we are almost invariably taught and informed by others; and as self-deluding creatures, we are constantly convincing ourselves that what we do is "right".

"TFY,S" seems to be a way to take a step back and contemplate your actions/beliefs.

What do you mean by "double check and independently verify your sources"?

Why don't you just say that instead of the vague phrase, "TFY,S"?

So you're saying WHENEVER this doesn't occur, you're not thinking for yourself?

The original usage of the term was stating that one should not simply follow some set of rules. "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!" was on a painting of Moses, coming down from Mt. Sinai with the tablets of the Law in his hand. However, instead of 10 laws from God, there was only one. "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!"

It was God telling people to use their brains rather than depending on Him to tell them what is Right, Wrong, Permissible or Not.

Which I think is a bit more than 'Verify your sources', but not as far as "Throw off all other views and make up your own completely unique view". It encompasses both, potentially... I think.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But, it must be remembered, that Net's post was intended to Deconstruct, so it's not like he actually holds that position, nor do we have to defend TFY,S.

Should no one discuss the validity of the premise of anyone else's deconstruction? What, then, is the point of this exercise?

I'm not saying that, i just wanted to point out that he was Taking It To Extremes on purpose.

Well, yeah...